jakee

So it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with not being good to people? But to be clear, homosexuality is contrasted with none of those things. From a human to human point of view there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. So not only is the Christian concept of sin not necessarily concerned with what is actually moral or good, the many Christians who argue against homosexuality absolutely are not concerned with what is moral or good, they've just singled out gay people as a group they can victimise to feel better about their own sinful lives that are actually damaging to other people? I didn't think you were going to be so up front about it, to be honest. So why are you defending Ron if you think that's what he's doing?

Lol, where did that come from? No, I’m saying that Ron doesn’t actually care what the bible says about morality, he’s just pretending. Again, he has explicitly claimed to like and approve of Donald Trump because he’s a greedy swindler. Ron says that makes him a winner. When Ron says he has a problem with homosexuality because of what’s said in the bible he’s obviously lying. Lol, again what? How lazy are you being right now?

How many of us are like Trump in that we also con gullible and hypocritical so-called christians like Ron into thinking we care about the Bible? Probably none.

Ron loves Donald Trump because he’s a greedy swindler. Ron says that makes him a winner. Why is Ron lying about what the bible says?

Then why isn’t every other man’s choice only between women and skydiving?

Same in the UK too, especially after the police bribery and phone hacking scandals blew up. His ‘News of the World’ title had to be shut down after it became too toxic, but the actual defence used by his family and their editors against criminal liability was “we tasked our reporters to get the most personal info possible about celebs and crime victims but absolutely never ever asked where it came from or what they were using their massive expense accounts for”. Gutter journalism scumbag.

In good faith? Lol! Do you want to do anything at all now to address Dobbs, instead of waving away the guy who had the most watched business show in the country as an irrelevant nobody? Do you think you were operating in good faith when you did that?

Which part of ‘more likely’ are you having trouble with? Is it a complicated concept? It’s like the difference between crack and cocaine. All sorts of folks take either drug, but way more black folks take crack and way more white folks take cocaine, and crack is punished far more heavily. The tax code is unlikely to be as deliberately racist as that, but it is likely that when designing certain tax breaks they’ve looked at what sounds good for white middle class homeowners right now and lacked the imagination to think any further than that.

Yeah, I’m sure a guy who thinks tax shouldn’t exist is a real deep thinker. Never mind a guy who believes in the pure unfettered free market claiming that big corporations are destroying society by pushing wokeness. I’m sure his various personalities have a great time debating each other.

When it suits you, you work in an industry which only ever hires based purely on merit and couldn’t afford to discriminate if it wanted to. When it suits you otherwise, you work in an industry that is explicitly and overtly racist against you. Sounds legit.

That you’ve endured? No shit Sherlock, you’re not fucking black.

You can tell people about what someone is saying without giving them a platform to say it. Anyway, how many times did Fox bring her on TV? How many times did they bring her on again after one of their hosts called her out for lack of evidence? How many times did they bring one of the President elect’s representatives on to national TV to counter her (or any of Fox’s other) allegations that the election was rigged?

Lou Dobbs Hits 40 Consecutive Months As Most-Watched Cable Business Host So again, do you not think you should find out what he said before being so adamant that he’s not important here?

When?

Yes, Lou Dobbs said something. Several times. Maybe you should look into that before getting too indignant? You’ve spent enough time figuring out what Carlson did or didn’t say, but he’s not even a party to the suit. Dobbs is one of only 3 hosts named by Dominion, but you’re convinced Fox are in the clear even though you’ve no idea what he said? BTW, yes they did cancel his show. The day after the suit was filed. I don’t know what that tells you, but what it tells me is not good for Fox.

Didn’t some Fox hosts keep playing that one clip of people ambling through the capitol lobby as ‘proof’ that Jan 6 is sent serious? But I’m sure they can be trusted to edit this in a fair and balanced way.

Jesus. Imagine being so corrupt you end up on the wrong side of an argument with Mike Lindell.

Something fun to watch could be the future of Yevgeny Prigozhin, the psychopathic Wagner commander. He doesn’t seem to understand Putin’s game of building up then chopping down his closest advisors, and is acting as if he’s genuinely important enough to be indispensable to the Boss. After Prigozhin accused Russia’s General Staff of treason(!) for not giving his mercenaries enough ammunition, Putin dropped a line into yesterdays speech urging an end to petty squabbles and distractions among military leaders. Prigozhin’s response was that he hadn’t bothered to watch Putin’s speech because he was too busy with the war. The 5th story window is calling…

There is a middle ground between the two of you. Joe may well be right that it's not the situation to send western troops into, and Bigun's right that the 'boiling frogs' approach has been unnecessarily cautious. There have been numerous points in the war where supply of heavier and longer range weaponry that we ended up giving them (or will give them) anyway could have made huge differences. Imagine what 10 or 15 Himars and plenty of rockets could have done to the convoy stuck outside Kyiv, and imagine what that would have meant for the eastern front that many of those Russian vehicles ended up redeploying to? We're way beyond the point of worrying that any of Putin's extreme threats might actually be serious, and the damage done to the Russian military will already take years or decades to repair. At this point we shoud stop with any worries about what might be seen as 'offensive' and supply them with whatever they can use that can cripple Russia's ability to 1) bomb civilian targets across Ukraine and 2) protect the territory they've seized. Even if that means enabling Ukraine to strike hard at airfields and supply depots inside Russia.

Seems like by far the most sensible thing to do. If you don’t tell them, there’s a small but real chance of getting caught in a random strike. If you do tell them, they’ll put a massive exclusion zone around him for any missile, drone, saboteur, and whatever the hell else they’re doing activity. The last thing Russia wants is a reason for western forces to get directly involved.

Lol, blaming democrats for pig-ignorant creationist fucktards is a new one for me

Hehe yeah. Did I misread it or was there a quote in that article where the Fox News CEO refers to a significant chunk of their own viewers as ‘the crazies’ that they have to appease?

So here you’re saying the question is fair because you believe the answer ‘yes’ is backed up by the facts you provided. And now you’re saying the question is not intended to convey any opinion of yours whatsoever, you could equally believe and accept that the answer is ‘no’. Get back to me with which Brent I should be talking to and we’ll go from there.

Maggie Cleary, Youngkin’s deputy secretary of public safety, told the courts of justice subcommittee it was not the legislature’s responsibility to restrict the scope of search warrants. Um, so, whose job is it to make the law, then?

To be clear, that's an obvious lie. "Can we all agree that the earth’s climate system is not a sensitive to CO2 as once feared?"